The inside story of why we launched Big Bash League
Columnist By Mike McKenna, 14 Feb 2011
3,196 readsRelated coverage
Exclusive Roar guest column by Mike McKenna, of Cricket Australia, Big Bash League project owner. McKenna responds to The Roar to explain Cricket Australia’s concept and direction for the new domestic Twenty20 competition, which prompted strong debate on the site.
“The Big Bash League discussion has certainly stirred up a lot of passionate interest and opinions over the past week. But this passion shows Aussie fans love their cricket.
So what is going on?
Big picture: adult Australia loves cricket; but the game has an opportunity to build interest and appeal with young fans who prefer Twenty20 cricket.
Ditto, on female Australia. There’s one female cricket fan for every two men who know the score. Compare cricket’s appeal to women with that of the AFL and even NRL and you can see the opportunity / imperative.
The experience here and elsewhere shows that Twenty20 appeals to young boys and girls, and it appeals to women.
Second issue: Australian cricket is unusual in that it relies heavily on the international game to generate the revenue we use to invest in growing the game.
Most sports are supported by their domestic competitions, with international revenue the cream on top. In cricket, it’s the opposite.
Why is that a worry? We get edgy that all our eggs are in one basket. We need sustainable domestic cricket and that might even reduce our reliance on international cricket.
Here’s some of the detail behind some of the questions we’re hearing.
Why franchise-based teams when there are well-established state teams?
For a couple of reasons. To reach kids, we need cricket that doesn’t look like the cricket they know. And the competition will possibly end up with ten or even more teams and we don’t have ten states.
Why not Geelong, or other regionals?
Geelong in particular put in a cracker of a bid. But we need a strong launching pad and two teams in two major venues in Melbourne, a city on track to become Australia’s biggest city, is a strong starting point.
But regional Australia doesn’t have a team to follow?
I‘ve spent heaps of time in country Victoria, NSW and QLD and it is full of die-hard Bombers, Magpies, Broncos and Dragons fans who have never lived in, and possibly hardly ever visited, those towns or suburbs the teams represent.
Is this just a grab for Indian money?
No. It is designed for Australian fans. The Big Bash League’s revenue will come mainly from Australia. Yes, Indian investors are interested in minority stakes, and there might even be some Indian sponsors appearing on team shirts, but the main audience and income is from Australia.
Why force fans to lose their local stars to Big Bash League teams elsewhere?
The eight new teams each need enough good players to be competitive. Currently about 30% of state players are playing for different states to where they started (a couple have as many as 50%). We and the ACA are crunching through some issues but we are fairly close to figuring it out.
But won’t this kill Test cricket skills?
No. The same was said of 50-over cricket when it was invented. Talk to Greg Chappell: as a youngster confronted with the new ODI format, he found it improved his skills and made him a better bat. But yes, it will still be important to teach kids the core fundamentals of cricket before they go on to become a Twenty20, ODI, Test, or maybe an all-formats’ player.
Ultimately our position is that Twenty20 needs to complement not compromise international cricket.”
Passionate about your cricket? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily cricket email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
February 14th 2011 @ 6:30am
Vinay Verma said | February 14th 2011 @ 6:30am | Report comment
Mike,if I may I will start with the last two: I would suggest someone like Greg Chappell already had the skill,gained through a rigorous Shield,to become a better batsman. Someone like Warner is inadequate and his first ball dismissal at North Sydney yesterday lends credence to the fact that young players do not have the skills to survive an overcast day. To further compound this players like Jacques and Hughes have also been afflicted with the Twenty20 curse.
The dilution of the existing fan base,in your opinion,will be offset by new demographics. I offer it will alieniate existing fans and further erode their interest in Tests and the 50 over game. In fact the split over 45 Ryobi competition ,I would say,is a failure. The crowd yesterday at NS Oval was barely 500 and while there was the inclement weather ,it appeared followers were overdosed. There has been too much meaningless cricket..7 ODI’s,when those participating had no chance to make the WC squad lessened the context. Only the first ODI had any meaning.
I also suggest that your expansion into ten teams is predicated on some sort of assurance that you will be given 3 spots in the lucrative Champions League. Considering CA’s partnership in the CL this is not an entirely unreasonable deduction.
In the end the big questions are structural. The coaching at the grassroots. The coaching of the coaches and strengthening grade and the Shield. Players with a modicum of technique will not make Australian cricket strong. And that,I suggest,is the priority.
February 14th 2011 @ 8:59am
Ben Carter said | February 14th 2011 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Vinay – totally agree about the Roybi Cup. Disastrous format – would have preferred it to stay 50 overs a side, or cut it if you need to down to 40 overs a side (I believe they do this in England/South Africa). Twenty20 remains too short, but if 50 really is too long, why not 40 a side – still time to build an innings, stage a comeback, etc. The two biggest issues at present are still:
1. Ryobi Cup in the 45-over format stinks. Why not 40-a-side, 15 games plus two semis and a final. Done.
2. Totally ignoring in-built state rivalry to foist up to TEN new made-up teams on an already skeptical sporting public. Again – just add ACT/NT and you have eight teams with the state-state rivalry intact. Done.
How simple. Memo to Cricket Australia – it’s not that hard – and it retains enough of what the fans actually want to see. They pay their money, you know – and deserve to be heard.
February 14th 2011 @ 7:30am
sheek said | February 14th 2011 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Mike,
Limited overs cricket actually enhanced the skills of test & first class players.
It taught the batsmen how to score runs more quickly, without losing their technique or concentration.
It taught bowlers the importance of taking wickets to reduce leaking runs, when being expensive.
Most importantly, it improved the fitness of players & their fielding, throwing & catching skills.
Limited overs cricket still required top order batsmen especially, to build an innings, & bowlers were still required to take wickets as the best way to reduce the run rate.
Test & first class cricket definitely benefited from limited overs cricket.
No such thing can be said for T20 cricket. It is simply smash & bash. No subtlety. No defining skills.
It’s skills (what there are) are foreign to test & first class cricket. It helps test & first class cricket in no way directly or indirectly.
It will replace test & first class cricket. That is what it will do.
Those players good at T20 cricket don’t require the skills for test & first class cricket anymore. Besides, they are making so much money from T20, they don’t need to develop skills for the longer game.
Be careful what you wish for – because T20 cricket won’t enhance or compliment test cricket – it will kill off test & Shield cricket.
All CA is doing is hastening the demise of traditional cricket. Peter Yong said he wants his grand children to still be able to watch cricket. The problem is, it won’t be the same cricket that he or we grew up watching & loving.
There are other, & in my humble opinion, better ways to make traditional cricket more relevant to today’s society. But those options are being ignored by CA, at the short to medium-term expense of chasing the unholy dollar!
February 14th 2011 @ 7:52am
Funktapuss said | February 14th 2011 @ 7:52am | Report comment
“For a couple of reasons. To reach kids, we need cricket that doesn’t look like the cricket they know. And the competition will possibly end up with ten or even more teams and we don’t have ten states.”
20/20 is still cricket, just played with wilder strokeplay. If you want club cricket, then you already have Premier Cricket.
With the BBL setup, you just alienate your already made fans in the hope of gaining new fans.
In Melbourne you have two huge stadiums that will be mostly empty. I hope you lot can afford the rent.
Unfortunately, I have seen gimmicks in cricket before and this is just another one bound to fail also..
February 14th 2011 @ 2:59pm
Jay said | February 14th 2011 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
Agree. Playing games at ANZ stadium is a recipie for disaster.
8k people doesnt make for good viewing.
February 14th 2011 @ 8:05am
The Bush said | February 14th 2011 @ 8:05am | Report comment
“Big picture: adult Australia loves cricket; but the game has an opportunity to build interest and appeal with young fans who prefer Twenty20 cricket.”
I’d argue that adult Australia doesn’t love cricket right now and that’s the real concern you should be looking into… But that’s an argument for another day.
I was a child once and I became a fan of cricket without Twenty20. I’m still in my twenties and I still love cricket. My complaints of cricket are all things that can be fixed quite easily.
I hope you’ve thought long and hard about this, because once these ‘young fans’ who really only go once a year to be cool or whatever, and don’t have the passion to go to Test’s, ODI’s, play club cricket, and watch every day of every test during a summer, move on to the next bright and shiney American-style carnival, what will you be left with? I suggest it will be less fans than you had previously.
February 14th 2011 @ 8:43am
Rellum said | February 14th 2011 @ 8:43am | Report comment
I really hate it when marketing people speak about sport, it is insulting to any sports person, and I hate it even more when the use a few demographic surveys to make decisions that they think will solve all problems. I had to put up with it in the A-League and now they want to do it to our most traditional sport.
You are selling the game as a fad to a group of people who get sick of the latest fad quicker than you can set up a new BBL. What happens in 10 years time when the BBL is as popular as one-day cricket is?
February 14th 2011 @ 9:07am
Jetto said | February 14th 2011 @ 9:07am | Report comment
It’s quite a venture this, Cricket Australia. All the best with it – it’d be fantastic to see a credible domestic Twenty20 comp that can generate strong interest.
February 14th 2011 @ 9:22am
Willy said | February 14th 2011 @ 9:22am | Report comment
I’m sorry, but allowing someone to frame their own questions, and then answer them, is a meaningless exercise.
If Mike can come on here and answer some genuine questions, posed by genuine cricket fans, then I’ll give him some credit.
The above is little more than a PR exercise. There are no real answers there.
February 14th 2011 @ 12:00pm
Rob McLean said | February 14th 2011 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
I think that’s a bit harsh, they are pretty much the questions that have been posted by many readers on here.
February 14th 2011 @ 9:37am
Jiggles said | February 14th 2011 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Personally I don’t buy this “the youth only like 20/20” BS.
When you talk to young males (ages 15-25) in particular they fall into 2 categories:
1.They Like cricket
2.They don’t like cricket.
The young Male demographic that does like cricket mostly think that test cricket is the pinnacle of the sport and think 20/20 is a freak sideshow, if they bother to watch it at all.
The young males who don’t like cricket, don’t like cricket. Any form of the game.
I was at both the Brisbane and Melbourne tests for the majority of days and I saw plenty of young blokes watching the cricket, and loving it.
Despite what your marketing says CA, the public wants meaningful Test Cricket, not hit and giggle stuff. I get the feeling that CA skews the numbers to justify putting on more of this 20/20 Crap in order to ponder to Indian overlords, who are not interested in the game, just the money that the game can produce.
February 14th 2011 @ 9:58am
rick-eyre said | February 14th 2011 @ 9:58am | Report comment
“To reach kids, we need cricket that doesn’t look like the cricket they know.” I think Mike has said it all in that one sentence, which could otherwise be expressed by saying: “We have to destroy cricket in order to save it.” This PR-driven Q&A disguised as a “guest column” is another disturbing symptom of how out of touch Cricket Australia has become with its public.
February 14th 2011 @ 10:24am
Rabbitz said | February 14th 2011 @ 10:24am | Report comment
I am glad I am not the only one who saw this press release cut and paste as nothing more than PR spin. To me, it just reinforces that CA (and most sporting bodies) believe that the paying public are fools who will swallow the marketing tripe.
Too bad for the future and traditions of cricket. Clearly the next “playing condition” to introduced will be ‘tip and run’. That should get the adrenaline flowing.
February 14th 2011 @ 11:06am
EP - Rugbywits said | February 14th 2011 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Agree.
“To reach kids, we need cricket that doesn’t look like the cricket they know.”
You can almost hear the evil villan laughing all the way from his cliche driven lair.
February 14th 2011 @ 1:47pm
Zac Zavos said | February 14th 2011 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Rick-Eyre – isn’t this a case of damned if you do; damned if you don’t?
I personally welcome Cricket Australia monitoring the debate in this space and then taking the time to respond to Roarers directly while addressing some of the questions.
That it doesn’t give you the answers that you want can’t be controlled.
But I think we should be encouraging this action rather than criticising CA as being out of touch.
I encourage Roarers to respond with respect, and focus on the specific issues raised by CA in this post.
Thanks,
Zac
The Roar
February 14th 2011 @ 10:33am
Atawhai Drive said | February 14th 2011 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Mike McKenna should be congratulated for taking the time and having the courage to leap into the lion’s den, as it were. But his answers to Roarers’ and others’ questions are less than satisfactory.
It might be a little unkind to describe Cricket Australia as “a marketing organisation that dabbles in cricket on the side’’, as Gideon Haigh has done in a piece written for Cricinfo. But Haigh also refers to “desperate attempts to look hip and youthful” and it’s hard to disagree.
The rationale of the Big Bash is that CA has to sell cricket, or at least a form of cricket, to people who don’t like cricket. That in itself is dodgy, but McKenna seems to think franchise-based city teams are the way to go. Addressing concerns that regional Australians will no longer have a team to follow, he cites people in country Victoria, NSW and Queensland who support the Bombers, the Magpies, the Broncos and the Dragons. Quite so. But those are AFL and NRL teams, not cricket teams.
State-based competition has been the basis of cricket in this country, setting it apart from the winter football codes. But it appears McKenna and his fellow marketers want to make cricket look the same as any other sport. So much for the unique nature and appeal of cricket.
I could go on, hammering the point that the great Twenty20 bubble has already burst etc. But isn’t it a fact that Mike McKenna recently said the aim of the Big Bash League was to “enable us to make a hero out of Shaun Tait or David Warner, two great cricketers currently not playing for Australia [in Test cricket].”?
I don’t think McKenna was being ironic. I think he actually meant what he said. So there you have it . . . a marketing man with no background in the game can confer greatness on two utterly ordinary players who for a variety of reasons are not on the Test selectors’ radar. God help us.